I've read every single comment in this thread, and I disagree with your assessment of TheCosmicKid's posts entirely. I think you're missing his point in your attempt to preserve your personal belief in what the ranger is/should be. I've yet to remotely sense he wants anything other than the best for the class and those who play it. I also sense you want the same thing but are being very close-minded about it. Rather than try to shape the discussion towards your beliefs, try to actually understand what he's proposing rather than how your opinions differ. This is an important discussion, let's all keep an open mind.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?
- Thread starter Hriston
- Start date
I've read every single comment in this thread, and I disagree with your assessment of TheCosmicKid's posts entirely. I think you're missing his point in your attempt to preserve your personal belief in what the ranger is/should be. I've yet to remotely sense he wants anything other than the best for the class and those who play it. I also sense you want the same thing but are being very close-minded about it. Rather than try to shape the discussion towards your beliefs, try to actually understand what he's proposing rather than how your opinions differ. This is an important discussion, let's all keep an open mind.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
Out of a dozen PHB classes, including four to six "martial" classes depending on how you count, ranger is the only one that has favored enemy. Clearly the system is robust enough to support classes which are great at killing everything but are not fighters.
Why should that be his thing? Yes, of course the ranger should be different than other classes. But favored enemy isn't the only way to do that. Imagine we're writing the very first edition of Dungeons & Dragons together. We decide that wizards should be magical, rogues should be sneaky, and fighters should fight. That's all very straightforward, because those are the capabilities that make those archetypes archetypes. When people think of what Merlin and Harry Potter have in common, they think "magic". When they think of what the Grey Mouser and Jack Sparrow have in common, they think "sneakiness". When they think of what Hector and Sandor Clegane have in common, they think "fighting". But then we get to the ranger, and you propose that it should have favored enemy. Why? When you think of what Natty Bumppo and Aragorn have in common, do you really think "favored enemy"? Or is there some other thread that connects the two characters more obviously?
DerekSTheRed
Explorer
Favored enemy is the ranger's exclusive thing. Without it, there's not enough to justify a separate class with multiple subclasses. The argument over whether it is a good design element or not is moot IMO.
The fact that this thread exists makes me think the ranger shouldn't be a class and the burden of proof is on those who think it should stay a separate class.
The fact that this thread exists makes me think the ranger shouldn't be a class and the burden of proof is on those who think it should stay a separate class.
And what would you say is "what he proposes"?
All I've gotten so far, after 29 pages, is "a mundane ranger with no favored enemy [since that' promoting racial hatred and Natty Bumppo and the greek goddess Artemis didn't have favored enemies] who's good at survival." Ring the bell and give the man a prize! A ranger who's good at survival skills! Who'da thunk?...We all KNOW that already!
Nothing really there that requires "understanding." Survival. Check. And what else do they get to do?
For pages I've seen pedantic arguments over BS, "It's racial hatred!" Yes. Racial hatred is a bad thing in the real world. We all know that. But since we're talking about a D&D fantasy world..."But why..." A D&D is explain like this. "But why..." The ranger always has. "But the fighter doesn't..." Because it's a ranger. "But <irrelevant literary/mythic references>" Again, D&D fantasy world...not literary or mythic characters. "But it's not..." But it is. "But <more mythic/literary characters>..."
If you said "The sky is blue" he'll tell you, "But it's not the grass. The fire is not blue."
So, you explain it for me, since I'm obviously too close-minded to understand what it is he's proposing...Other than everyone should google Natty f**ing Bumppo.
All I've gotten so far, after 29 pages, is "a mundane ranger with no favored enemy [since that' promoting racial hatred and Natty Bumppo and the greek goddess Artemis didn't have favored enemies] who's good at survival." Ring the bell and give the man a prize! A ranger who's good at survival skills! Who'da thunk?...We all KNOW that already!
Nothing really there that requires "understanding." Survival. Check. And what else do they get to do?
For pages I've seen pedantic arguments over BS, "It's racial hatred!" Yes. Racial hatred is a bad thing in the real world. We all know that. But since we're talking about a D&D fantasy world..."But why..." A D&D is explain like this. "But why..." The ranger always has. "But the fighter doesn't..." Because it's a ranger. "But <irrelevant literary/mythic references>" Again, D&D fantasy world...not literary or mythic characters. "But it's not..." But it is. "But <more mythic/literary characters>..."
If you said "The sky is blue" he'll tell you, "But it's not the grass. The fire is not blue."
So, you explain it for me, since I'm obviously too close-minded to understand what it is he's proposing...Other than everyone should google Natty f**ing Bumppo.
I think his argument can be partially distilled to:
Let's consider what makes classes different and ensure the ranger has that differentiation.
Rogues have any number of class defining features with Sneak Attack and Cunning Action being the most powerful. Give rangers that level of uniqueness in their class-defining features as well. We do not need to stick to the mechanics of the existing ranger, only the flavor.
Let's consider what makes classes different and ensure the ranger has that differentiation.
Rogues have any number of class defining features with Sneak Attack and Cunning Action being the most powerful. Give rangers that level of uniqueness in their class-defining features as well. We do not need to stick to the mechanics of the existing ranger, only the flavor.
DerekSTheRed
Explorer
Sorry Steeldragons but I think you got trolled hard. The whole favored enemy is racist tangent was ... unhelpful.
Getting back to the topic at hand. I view favored enemy/terrain as situational bonuses. How situational? I would say about as often as a cleric's turn undead. Notice that turn undead is part of a suite of powers under channel divinity. Maybe the ranger should have a similar mechanic? No one power will trigger frequently, but in aggregate one of the powers of Nature's Divinity (or whatever) would trigger frequently enough to work.
Getting back to the topic at hand. I view favored enemy/terrain as situational bonuses. How situational? I would say about as often as a cleric's turn undead. Notice that turn undead is part of a suite of powers under channel divinity. Maybe the ranger should have a similar mechanic? No one power will trigger frequently, but in aggregate one of the powers of Nature's Divinity (or whatever) would trigger frequently enough to work.
Thanks Derek.
I actually tried just this sort of thing in my second draft of the class...combining a superiority dice mechanic with a cunning action style list of possible actions. Thinking I can drop the whole dice thing and just limit the resource with rests.
But, yes. Shouldn't be a magical sourced think, in my case/opinion, but that's exactly the kind of mechanic you're talking about. I think it has possibilities.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
It was a stupid wisecrack on my part. I apologized for it immediately.
That sounds like a reasonable compromise.
I like the concept of rangers, but I think they've been done kinda badly in most iterations of the game, dating back at least to early 3e and the numerous "Rangers got the shaft" discussions (which lead to Monte Cook making an alternate ranger for download at his website). I love 5e, and wish I would get to play it more. I've read the PHB multiple times, and I've been playing the game since early 2e.
My problems with Favored Enemy are:
* It's not something that's essential to the character of a warrior straddling the line between wilderness and civilization. Characters like Aragorn are badass in general, not just against particular creatures. The examples of fictional rangers in 2e were Robin Hood, Orion, Jack the Giant-killer, and the huntresses of Diana. Only one of these is particularly focused on fighting one kind of creature. There are characters in fiction that are great at fighting particular creatures, but they aren't necessarily particularly ranger-y. To me, this indicates that if you want a favored enemy mechanic, it should be something that's available to anyone and not tied to a particular class.
* It is, at least in its 3.5e version, mechanically problematic by providing a powerful but highly situational bonus. You either balance the class around having the bonus, in which case he'll suck when he doesn't get it, or you balance it around not having it in which case he'll trivialize encounters or the right kind. In addition, many of the options for favored enemies are "trap" options - in most campaigns, if you take Humanoid (orc) as your favored enemy you won't get much use of it past 5th level or so. This aspect is lessened in 5e, because the Favored Enemy ability there belongs in the Exploration pillar - you have an easier time tracking them and knowing things about them, but once you're actually facing them you're just as good as anyone else.
Diamondeye
First Post
Having read the entire thread, I really find the idea that there's not enough to keep Ranger as its own class, or that it needs to have favored enemy/spells/animal companions just to work in the first place to be pretty absurd. Rangers have existed in plenty of games outside of D&D and have always worked well. It isn't particularly hard to come up with workable concepts for several Ranger variants as long as one doesn't get married to a Ranger having or not having various features just because <insert edition here> had it or a specific literary character had it.
First, what's a Ranger? A Ranger is an expert on the wilderness. He's not a primitive tribesman; that's a Barbarian, he's not a guardian of nature, that's a Druid. He's not simply a warrior that happens to be outdoors a lot, that's a Fighter and he's not simply a stealthy scout; that's a Rogue. Those people could be Rangers, but they don't have to be.
Instead, a Ranger has elements of all of these, and the key to making variants is which of the above the character favors.
What any of those Rangers generally have in common though, is that they are the people that make the wilderness approachable and livable for the rural folk that mine the ore and harvest the crops that feed the rest of civilization. Civilization isn't only in cities; it's the peasantry, country nobles, small towns, etc. Rangers may live in towns, even near cities. They might live way out in the wilderness. But, even if it's to a very small degree they're a member of society. They might only be a criminal, but they're still part of that society.
The old man that lives in the small house on the outskirts of town, and knows where all the best hunting, fishing, and trapping spots are? He's a Ranger. The Baron's Sheriff? He might be a Ranger. That one guard with the caravan that can always set a broken bone just right, make a poultice, tell you if water is safe to drink and that the sergeant always asks if he thinks an attack is likely or if it's going to rain? He's a Ranger. That hermit that lives up on the mountain and comes into town with a tame wolf to buy stuff to make moonshine? The one that can tell you where to hide if you're afoul of the law? He's a Ranger too.
A Ranger is:
A Ranger might or might not be:
A quick word on the fighter - if the fighter is going to be the all-around "best at fighting", as in at least workable in ANY type of fighting and especially good at the type of fighting he focuses on, then the fighter is not also going to be a utility class. If we accept that - the Ranger is going to have more utility - then the Ranger is going to be more limited in terms of viable fighting styles.
Therefore right off the bat I'm going to say the Ranger IS NOT going to be a heavily armored melee combatant. His general defensive posture should be "moderate". He's not going to be an unarmed combatant (that's a monk) and he's not going to get the number or variety of combat abilities the Fighter does.
So, what should the class really look like? Well, it needs baseline abilities and then it needs subclass/variant abilities. Below are general capabilities, not specific mechanics but they form a framework for a way to make 4 types of Ranger.
As a baseline, a Ranger should have:
Now, as to subclasses/variants: All Rangers should be very good at archery, so in addition to that, they each need a subclass "thing".
A variant can be made focusing on stealth/utility, one for melee ability, one focusing on the animal companion and one focusing on spellcasting. I'm not going into specifics on these because it's too much work and I'm not developing replacement classes for free, but there is PLENTY of room in the Ranger for variants and full development.
I specifically left out the "Favored Enemy" because frankly I just don't think it's a good ability. That's the sort of ability that should accompany a background - I would rather see it as an alternate class feature, and I don't think it should be a major emphasis. It should be something more minor. Whether they're a Ranger thing or not they're too limiting to the player and DM, and too roleplay-centric to be a major class feature.
First, what's a Ranger? A Ranger is an expert on the wilderness. He's not a primitive tribesman; that's a Barbarian, he's not a guardian of nature, that's a Druid. He's not simply a warrior that happens to be outdoors a lot, that's a Fighter and he's not simply a stealthy scout; that's a Rogue. Those people could be Rangers, but they don't have to be.
Instead, a Ranger has elements of all of these, and the key to making variants is which of the above the character favors.
What any of those Rangers generally have in common though, is that they are the people that make the wilderness approachable and livable for the rural folk that mine the ore and harvest the crops that feed the rest of civilization. Civilization isn't only in cities; it's the peasantry, country nobles, small towns, etc. Rangers may live in towns, even near cities. They might live way out in the wilderness. But, even if it's to a very small degree they're a member of society. They might only be a criminal, but they're still part of that society.
The old man that lives in the small house on the outskirts of town, and knows where all the best hunting, fishing, and trapping spots are? He's a Ranger. The Baron's Sheriff? He might be a Ranger. That one guard with the caravan that can always set a broken bone just right, make a poultice, tell you if water is safe to drink and that the sergeant always asks if he thinks an attack is likely or if it's going to rain? He's a Ranger. That hermit that lives up on the mountain and comes into town with a tame wolf to buy stuff to make moonshine? The one that can tell you where to hide if you're afoul of the law? He's a Ranger too.
A Ranger is:
- A combat class
- Generally proficient at both ranged and melee combat
- Knows the woodland (or wherever he's from)
- Good at survival against the elements
- At least passable at staying unnoticed, particularly in his environment.
A Ranger might or might not be:
- The leader of some sort of animal that fights alongside him
- Particularly dedicated to fighting a certain type of opponent, or even unusually good at it
- An exceptional melee combatant
- Especially good at stealth
- Possessed of notable magical talent
A quick word on the fighter - if the fighter is going to be the all-around "best at fighting", as in at least workable in ANY type of fighting and especially good at the type of fighting he focuses on, then the fighter is not also going to be a utility class. If we accept that - the Ranger is going to have more utility - then the Ranger is going to be more limited in terms of viable fighting styles.
Therefore right off the bat I'm going to say the Ranger IS NOT going to be a heavily armored melee combatant. His general defensive posture should be "moderate". He's not going to be an unarmed combatant (that's a monk) and he's not going to get the number or variety of combat abilities the Fighter does.
So, what should the class really look like? Well, it needs baseline abilities and then it needs subclass/variant abilities. Below are general capabilities, not specific mechanics but they form a framework for a way to make 4 types of Ranger.
As a baseline, a Ranger should have:
- Very good archery ability, better than anyone else that isn't going out of their way to be good at archery
- Wilderness survival and knowledge abilities.
- Baseline martial class melee abilities
- Stealth capabilities better than most classes, possibly enhanced in terrain they're used to.
- Terrain that they "know" and the ability to learn more.
- General freedom of common melee styles: Weapon + shield, 2-weapon, 2-handed, single weapon, but excluding more exotic options
- Ability to help party members with wilderness tasks
Now, as to subclasses/variants: All Rangers should be very good at archery, so in addition to that, they each need a subclass "thing".
A variant can be made focusing on stealth/utility, one for melee ability, one focusing on the animal companion and one focusing on spellcasting. I'm not going into specifics on these because it's too much work and I'm not developing replacement classes for free, but there is PLENTY of room in the Ranger for variants and full development.
I specifically left out the "Favored Enemy" because frankly I just don't think it's a good ability. That's the sort of ability that should accompany a background - I would rather see it as an alternate class feature, and I don't think it should be a major emphasis. It should be something more minor. Whether they're a Ranger thing or not they're too limiting to the player and DM, and too roleplay-centric to be a major class feature.
